Since President Trump issued Executive Order (“E.O.”) 14275, “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement” on April 15, 2025 as part of an effort to remake Federal procurement, the Administration has undertaken a variety of initial steps to implement its so-called “Revolutionary FAR Overhaul” (“RFO”).  These steps include “streamlining” each Part of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) on a rolling basis to remove “non-statutory requirements.”  To date, seven streamlined FAR Parts have been released on the RFO page of acquisition.gov:  Parts 1, Federal Acquisition Regulation; 10, Market Research; 11, Describing Agency Needs; 18, Emergency Acquisitions; 34, Major System Acquisition; 39, Acquisition of Information and Communication Technology; and 43, Contract Modifications.  The public has the opportunity to provide “informal input” for each Part—the soonest of which is to provide feedback on FAR Part 10 by July 7, 2025 at 4:30 PM ET.[1]   Although the volume of streamlined FAR Parts, non-regulatory resources, and commentary on acquisition.gov has started to proliferate in recent weeks, the extent to which these resources can and will be relied on in a strategic, accessible manner by the broader acquisition community still remains to be seen. 

GSA Seeks to “Operationalize” Streamlined FAR Parts While Maintaining Contracting Officer Discretion

As detailed in our previous post, the FAR Council and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (“OFPP”) within the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) are in the process of issuing the streamlined FAR Parts through model deviations issued by the FAR Council and adopted by agencies accordingly.  During a recent Industry Webinar, the General Services Administration (“GSA”) reaffirmed that formal notice-and-comment rulemaking will occur after all 53 FAR Parts have been revised.  However, GSA stated that agencies will seek to “operationalize” the “interim deviations prior to rule-making.”  This indicates that solicitations will contain these deviations, and existing contracts may be modified while rulemaking is pending.[2]  GSA explained that agencies are required to adopt the FAR Council’s model deviation text, absent FAR Council approval of an agency’s modified text, unless the modified version “is necessary to address agency-specific statutory direction.” [3]  Notwithstanding these points, contracting officers may continue to rely on the policies and practices removed from the FAR to the extent that the contracting officer deems them beneficial, which will encourage “contracting officer discretion in determining whether a practice is suitable rather than a matter of compliance.”[4]

During its recent industry webinar, GSA predicted that for administrative efficiency reasons contracting officers likely would not proactively modify existing contracts to implement the proposed, streamlined FAR Parts.  However, contractors may affirmatively suggest (and indeed were seemingly encouraged to suggest) revisions to their existing contracts consistent with reducing burdensome requirements—especially where such revisions will provide cost-savings to the Federal government.

RFO Seeks to “Keep the Best of the FAR” and Move Other Content to Non-Regulatory Resources

In its webinar presentation, GSA elaborated on the RFO’s goal to “Keep the Best of the FAR,” which will include steps to:

  1. “[S]trip out non-statutory requirements” from the FAR
  2. Create “[o]ne central location for the acquisition community”
  3. Establish “[c]ommon clauses and representations” and “[a] common vocabulary to enable effective communication”
  4. Create “[a] shared rulebook” for Federal acquisitions 

Although the RFO will streamline the FAR text, the removed content will not necessarily disappear entirely.  Instead, the FAR Council and OFPP will be releasing “Non-regulatory Resources,” which will contain at least some of the excised material after review.  

GSA has described the three types of new non-regulatory resources as follows:

  • Practitioner Albums:  “Curated learning tools for each FAR deviation”
  • FAR Companion Guide:  “A reference to operationalize the revised FAR”
  • Category Buying Guide:  “A tool to align purchases with category management principles”

To date, only Practitioner Albums have been made available on the RFO website, with Albums released for each of the streamlined FAR Parts that have been posted.  The Practitioner Albums each contain a Change Summary and a Line Out document,[5] with further resources varying by Part.  For instance, “Practitioner’s Perspectives” are provided from GSA or DOGE officials for some Parts.[6]  These Practitioner’s Perspectives reflect shared themes of, among other things, aiding the Federal acquisition workforce in implementing the model deviations in their day-to-day operations, maintaining flexibility in procurements, and prioritizing efficiency. 

Additionally, “Smart Accelerators”—described as “practitioner-inspired knowledge nuggets”—are also being made available.  As an example, the Smart Accelerators corresponding to revised FAR Part 18 are meant to “enable faster procurements under FAR [P]art 18 emergency situations,” although the resource explains that “[t]hese practices are not limited to emergency acquisitions and can be used anytime!”  The Smart Accelerators for FAR Part 39 focus on “[a]ccelerating the way we buy and deploy information and communication technologies,” and are meant to “promote faster acquisition and secure deployment of information and communication technologies, including information technology (IT), operational technology, emerging technology, and information systems.”  Examples of the proposed FAR Companion Guide and Category Buying Guide are forthcoming. 

The RFO website also has a page dedicated to “Frequently Asked Questions,” which captures some of the prior guidance provided in other forms.  For example:

  • Buying guides will be released over time, although no particular timeline has been provided.
  • Agencies are expected to adopt the model deviations, though there may be exceptions for statutory or other extenuating reasons.  (Thus far, however, the RFO website reflects varying levels of adoption of the model deviations among agencies, which are accessible at the “Agency Deviations” link within each “overhauled” FAR Part here.)
  • Once all model deviations have been issued, formal notice-and-comment rulemaking will begin, which will “consider” the feedback provided during the overhaul process.

*          *          *

To date, the RFO has overhauled seven FAR Parts in approximately two months, leaving 46 Parts remaining.  As the overhaul process continues, contractors should carefully analyze the applicability of legacy FAR provisions and new deviations, as well as the extent to which contracting officers may exercise discretion within any given procurement or contract.  Covington’s Government Contracts team is tracking developments in this rapidly evolving procurement landscape. 


[1] As of the date of this blog post, the feedback deadlines for FAR Part 18, Part 39, and Part 43 are July 28, 2025 at 4:30 PM ET; and the feedback deadline for FAR Part 11 is August 4, 2025 at 4:30 PM ET.  The latest deadline to submit feedback thus far is September 30, 2025 at 4:30 PM ET for Part 1 and Part 34.  Some of these deadlines have been adjusted since their original posting, so it is possible there may be other changes.

[2] “From Policy to Practice,” Slide 27.

[3] See RFO – Frequently Asked Questions (last accessed on June 20, 2025) (Answer in response to: “Are agencies required to adopt the model deviation text?” and “Can agencies modify the model deviation text before adopting it?”).

[4] Id. (Answer in response to: “If policies and practices are removed from the FAR but the contracting officer finds their use is beneficial, should they continue using them?”).

[5] Per acquisition.gov, the Line Out document is not a crosswalk between the codified FAR Part and the proposed new language; rather, it reflects only the language that has been struck from the codified FAR Part. 

[6] See, e.g., FAR Part 1 Practitioner’s Perspective, Commentary on the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul, by GSA Senior Procurement Executive Jeff Koses; FAR Part 10 Practitioner’s Perspective, Value of Industry Days & Forms-Based RFIs, by GSA Associate Administrator of Government-Wide Policy and Chief Acquisition Officer Larry Allen and Senior Procurement Executive Jeff Koses; FAR Part 39 Practitioner’s Perspective, Transition-Ready: Future-Proofing Government Technology by Avoiding Vendor Lock-in, by DOGE Director of Procurement Frank McNally.

Photo of Scott A. Freling Scott A. Freling

Scott Freling divides his practice between representing civilian and defense contractors in traditional government contracts matters and guiding buyers and sellers—including a number of leading private equity firms—through the regulatory aspects of complex government contracts M&A deals. Scott co-chairs the firm’s Government Contracts…

Scott Freling divides his practice between representing civilian and defense contractors in traditional government contracts matters and guiding buyers and sellers—including a number of leading private equity firms—through the regulatory aspects of complex government contracts M&A deals. Scott co-chairs the firm’s Government Contracts practice.

Scott is sought after for his regulatory expertise and his ability to apply that knowledge to the transactional environment. Scott has deep experience leading classified and unclassified due diligence reviews of government contractors, negotiating transaction documents, and assisting with integration and other post-closing activities. He has been the lead government contracts lawyer in dozens of M&A deals, with a combined value of more than $79 billion. This has included Warburg Pincus and Berkshire Partners’ pending deal to acquire TRIUMPH for approximately $3 billion, Advent’s acquisition of Maxar Technologies for $6.4 billion, Aptiv’s acquisition of Wind River for $3.5 billion, and Veritas Capital’s sale of Alion Science and Technology to Huntington Ingalls for $1.65 billion.

Scott also represents contractors at all stages of the procurement process and in their dealings with federal, state, and local government customers. He handles a wide range of government contracts matters, including compliance counseling, claims, disputes, audits, and investigations. In addition, Scott counsels clients on risk mitigation strategies, including obtaining SAFETY Act liability protection for anti-terrorism technologies.

Scott has been recognized by Law360 as a MVP in government contracts. He is a past co-chair of the Mergers and Acquisitions Committee of the ABA’s Public Contract Law Section.

Photo of Kayleigh Scalzo Kayleigh Scalzo

Ranked by Chambers USA among government contracts practitioners, Kayleigh Scalzo represents government contractors in bid protests and other high-stakes litigation matters with the government and other private parties. She has litigated bid protests in a wide variety of forums, including the Government Accountability…

Ranked by Chambers USA among government contracts practitioners, Kayleigh Scalzo represents government contractors in bid protests and other high-stakes litigation matters with the government and other private parties. She has litigated bid protests in a wide variety of forums, including the Government Accountability Office, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, FAA Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition, federal and state agencies, and state courts.

Kayleigh a co-chair of the American Bar Association Public Contract Law Section’s Bid Protest Committee. She is also a frequent speaker on bid protest issues.

Kayleigh maintains an active pro bono practice focused on immigration issues and gender rights.

Photo of Michael Wagner Michael Wagner

Mike Wagner represents companies and individuals in complex compliance and enforcement matters arising in the public procurement context. Combining deep regulatory expertise and extensive investigations experience, Mike helps government contractors navigate detailed procurement rules and achieve the efficient resolution of government investigations and…

Mike Wagner represents companies and individuals in complex compliance and enforcement matters arising in the public procurement context. Combining deep regulatory expertise and extensive investigations experience, Mike helps government contractors navigate detailed procurement rules and achieve the efficient resolution of government investigations and enforcement actions.

Mike regularly represents contractors in federal and state compliance and enforcement matters relating to a range of procurement laws and regulations. He has particular experience handling investigations and litigation brought under the civil False Claims Act, and he routinely counsels government contractors on mandatory and voluntary disclosure considerations under the FAR, DFARS, and related regulatory regimes. He also represents contractors in high-stakes suspension and debarment matters at the federal and state levels, and he has served as Co-Chair of the ABA Suspension & Debarment Committee and is principal editor of the American Bar Association’s Practitioner’s Guide to Suspension & Debarment (4th ed.) (2018).

Mike also has extensive experience representing companies pursuing and negotiating grants, cooperative agreements, and Other Transaction Authority agreements (OTAs). In this regard, he has particular familiarity with the semiconductor and clean energy industries, and he has devoted substantial time in recent years to advising clients on strategic considerations for pursuing opportunities under the CHIPS Act, Inflation Reduction Act, and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

In his counseling practice, Mike regularly advises government contractors and suppliers on best practices for managing the rapidly-evolving array of cybersecurity and supply chain security rules and requirements. In particular, he helps companies assess and navigate domestic preference and country-of-origin requirements under the Buy American Act (BAA), Trade Agreements Act (TAA), Berry Amendment, and DOD Specialty Metals regulation. He also assists clients in managing product and information security considerations related to overseas manufacture and development of Information and Communication Technologies & Services (ICTS).

Mike serves on Covington’s Hiring Committee and is Co-Chair of the firm’s Summer Associate Program. He is a frequent writer and speaker on issues relating to procurement fraud and contractor responsibility, and he has served as an adjunct professor at the George Washington University Law School.

Photo of Daniel Russell Jr. Daniel Russell Jr.

Dan Russell represents government contractors in complex, high-stakes litigation. Over the past two decades, Dan has served as lead counsel for some of the largest U.S. defense contractors in a broad range of contract disputes and tort claims, including cases valued well in…

Dan Russell represents government contractors in complex, high-stakes litigation. Over the past two decades, Dan has served as lead counsel for some of the largest U.S. defense contractors in a broad range of contract disputes and tort claims, including cases valued well in excess of $100 million.

Dan has experience litigating contract claims and disputes before federal judges and juries, the Boards of Contract Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, including matters arising out of terminations, cost-allowability disputes, defective pricing claims, prime-sub disputes, and claims under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). Dan has also represented contractors in a myriad of tort suits arising out of work performed for the federal government. Dan has unparalleled experience defending “contractor on the battlefield” tort suits involving contracts performed during wartime or other high-risk, contingency environments. Dan has obtained complete dismissals of tort suits based on an array of federal-law-based defenses, including the government contractor defense, the political question doctrine, federal preemption, and derivative sovereign immunity.

Dan has litigated a variety of other matters involving government contracts and uniquely-federal issues, including: cases brought under the civil False Claims Act (FCA); insurance coverage matters for federal contractors; claims against federal agencies brought under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act; and regulatory enforcement actions.

At the appellate level, Dan has argued cases before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit. He has also represented clients in matters before numerous other appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.

In addition to his litigation practice, Dan regularly provides risk-mitigation counseling for contractors, with a particular focus on strategies to reduce potential exposure to tort claims and other liabilities in connection with the performance of high-risk government contracts.

Photo of Sarah Schuler Sarah Schuler

Sarah Schuler is an associate in the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group, advising clients across a broad range of government contracting compliance issues. Her areas of expertise include advising on intellectual property and data rights issues under the Federal Acquisition Regulation, including obligations…

Sarah Schuler is an associate in the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group, advising clients across a broad range of government contracting compliance issues. Her areas of expertise include advising on intellectual property and data rights issues under the Federal Acquisition Regulation, including obligations imposed by the Bayh-Dole Act; application of the Freedom of Information Act to government contracts and related records; domestic sourcing requirements imposed under the Buy American Act and Trade Agreements Act; pricing and other compliance related issues arising under Federal Supply Schedule contracts; small business affiliation and certification analyses; the scope of flow-down requirements for subcontractors; and federal grant compliance under the Uniform Guidance and agency supplements. Sarah also counsels clients to navigate time-sensitive inquiries arising from contract compliance-related issues.

Sarah also maintains an active pro bono practice, providing counsel to U.S. service members with respect to the correction of military records and discharge upgrade requests.

Photo of Victoria Skiera Victoria Skiera

Victoria Skiera is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office. She is a member of the government contracts practice group and maintains an active pro bono practice.

Ethan Syster

Ethan Syster is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC Office. He is a member of the Government Contracts Practice Group. Ethan assists clients with a broad range of issues across all stages of the public procurement process.